Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

Nothing much really new there. He was found innocent on most of those charges because they were unable to be proven.

Found not guilty* (not the same thing as found innocent)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Found not guilty* (not the same thing as found innocent)

Innocent until proven guilty.

---

Sorry to triple post, but I have news that will be devastating to many of you!

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1201263673425178629?s=21

---

Corrik7 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty.

We have a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal liability (which is a good thing), but theres no need to apply that standard in our personal evaluations (indeed, we dont even apply it in civil suits!). The medic changing his story made it so that there was little choice for the court but to declare Gallagher not guilty of the murder, but the medic most likely perjured himself and Gallagher was almost certainly a murderer (not just in this case, but also in other instances he wasnt charged with as reported by his platoon-mates).

---

Corrik7 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty.

Corrik, did OJ kill his wife?

---

Innocent until proven guilty is untenable anyway

In many cases, if you presume innocence on charges like rape, then youre implying that the accusers are lying until its proven they arent.

Which is in and of itself a crime, so you have to consider THEM innocent of lying, which would mean the accused rapist would have to be guilty
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Found not guilty* (not the same thing as found innocent)

From my understanding, the entire case was completely derailed because the medic told prosecutors he could corroborate all the awful shit the guy did in exchange for immunity, then got on the stand and specifically contradicted one unexpected detail which made it legally hard to convict.

The medic said something like Yeah, Gallagher stabbed him in the chest, but I determined thats not what killed him.

So because Prosecutors spent time making the case Gallagher stabbed this guy to death, this one change in details really hurt it.

Anyone saying Gallagher is innocent because of this, when literally his entire unit of decorated Seals said he was a monster is being ridiculous.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is untenable anyway

In many cases, if you presume innocence on charges like rape, then youre implying that the accusers are lying until its proven they arent.

Which is in and of itself a crime, so you have to consider THEM innocent of lying, which would mean the accused rapist would have to be guilty

I disagree with this. There's a large area in the middle of "plausible but unproven" where there's justification for neither meting out criminal punishment or calling the accuser a liar.

---

From my understanding, the entire case was completely derailed because the medic told prosecutors he could corroborate all the awful shit the guy did in exchange for immunity, then got on the stand and specifically contradicted one unexpected detail which made it legally hard to convict.

aka the Vic Mackey stratagem
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik, did OJ kill his wife?

Legally he did not do so within reasonable doubt.

He probably did however.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

From my understanding, the entire case was completely derailed because the medic told prosecutors he could corroborate all the awful shit the guy did in exchange for immunity, then got on the stand and specifically contradicted one unexpected detail which made it legally hard to convict.

The medic said something like Yeah, Gallagher stabbed him in the chest, but I determined thats not what killed him.

Close, but not quite. He changed his story on the stand to say he killed the captive in question.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I disagree with this. There's a large area in the middle of "plausible but unproven" where there's justification for neither meting out criminal punishment or calling the accuser a liar.

Sometimes there really isnt
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is untenable anyway

In many cases, if you presume innocence on charges like rape, then youre implying that the accusers are lying until its proven they arent.

Which is in and of itself a crime, so you have to consider THEM innocent of lying, which would mean the accused rapist would have to be guilty

its simple:

1. you presume the rapist is innocent, which then suggests the accuser is inaccurate
2. you presume the accuser is innocent of fabricating the story, which then suggests she genuinely believes what she is saying to be true
3. until the rapists trial is concluded, you presume the accuser has false memories implanted in her head or she was raped by some sort of shapeshifter

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is untenable anyway

In many cases, if you presume innocence on charges like rape, then youre implying that the accusers are lying until its proven they arent.

Which is in and of itself a crime, so you have to consider THEM innocent of lying, which would mean the accused rapist would have to be guilty

That's why we don't have private prosecutions anymore. The accuser is the sovereign, which (1) has no personal knowledge, and therefore cannot be lying under oath, and (2) is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution anyway.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Found not guilty* (not the same thing as found innocent)

From my understanding, the entire case was completely derailed because the medic told prosecutors he could corroborate all the awful shit the guy did in exchange for immunity, then got on the stand and specifically contradicted one unexpected detail which made it legally hard to convict.

The medic said something like Yeah, Gallagher stabbed him in the chest, but I determined thats not what killed him.

So because Prosecutors spent time making the case Gallagher stabbed this guy to death, this one change in details really hurt it.

Anyone saying Gallagher is innocent because of this, when literally his entire unit of decorated Seals said he was a monster is being ridiculous.

If the prosecution based their whole case on the word of one witness and then that witness said he's innocent.......I don't see how any reasonable jury could possibly convict on those facts.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs#

Oh my god the cringe

I dont think theres anyone here who thinks Gallagher is a good guy, so lets go back to my post about Biden being a fucking weirdo.

---

Read this if you want to make your blood boil:
https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1201330337386815489?s=21
Wonder how many people lives Trump has upended in trying to find scapegoats to excuse his crimes.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Read this if you want to make your blood boil:
https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1201330337386815489?s=21
Wonder how many people lives Trump has upended in trying to find scapegoats to excuse his crimes.

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. In the USA you may not die but you will still suffer the consequences of your defeat.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is untenable anyway

In many cases, if you presume innocence on charges like rape, then youre implying that the accusers are lying until its proven they arent.

Which is in and of itself a crime, so you have to consider THEM innocent of lying, which would mean the accused rapist would have to be guilty

holy shit

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs#

Oh my god the cringe

I just realized that this is the same speech that the Corn Pop story came from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oihV9yrZRHg

I honestly can't say if that makes it better or worse

---

I feel like term limits are getting to be a better idea every day. Our politicians are so old they aren't really in touch with average Americans. There are exceptions, of course. But the world is constantly evolving and changing. And we need politicians who are still able to evolve and change with it.
---

Term limits are a good theory, but we need to solve the "lobbyists are the only ones with enough knowledge to write bills" issue before they can be a good practice.

What we really need is an active, informed electorate that will vote out the out of touch old farts.

Reg posted...

Term limits are a good theory, but we need to solve the "lobbyists are the only ones with enough knowledge to write bills" issue before they can be a good practice.

What we really need is an active, informed electorate that will vote out the out of touch old farts.

Term limits + lobbying reform


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Reg posted...

Term limits are a good theory, but we need to solve the "lobbyists are the only ones with enough knowledge to write bills" issue before they can be a good practice.

What we really need is an active, informed electorate that will vote out the out of touch old farts.

Term limits + lobbying reform

Sure, that'd be great. Just reminding people that limits alone are not a good solution.

I am actually not in favor of term limits. I am in favor of a well informed electorate though.

---

You guys sound like you might like this guy named Donald J Trump. He wants lobbying eliminated and term limits.

---

Corrik7 posted...

You guys sound like you might like this guy named Donald J Trump. He wants lobbying eliminated and term limits.

https://apnews.com/08dce0f5f9c24a6aa355cd0aab3747d9

Nope.
---

Corrik7 posted...

You guys sound like you might like this guy named Donald J Trump. He wants lobbying eliminated and term limits.

Yeah, he really doesn't like lobbyists! Which is why he named Scott Pruitt head of the EPA or Betsy DeVos the head of the Department of Education. You know, lobbyists in both of those sectors that go against the stated goals of those departments.
---

Corrik7 posted...

You guys sound like you might like this guy named Donald J Trump. He wants lobbying eliminated and term limits.

yeah no, he might have said those things like once before he got elected, but he said a lot of things.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

yeah no, he might have said those things like once before he got elected, but he said a lot of things.

It's a lot harder to get the Congress to pass a term limit bill than you might imagine!

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's a lot harder to get the Congress to pass a term limit bill than you might imagine!

What about the area Trump has direct and personal control over - appointing of lobbyists to cabinet positions?

---

Term limits for legislative bodies are a bad idea. Most people aren't in there very long anyway. Who cares that a handful of Senators have been there for decades? The amount of people in both houses that are there for more than 15 or so years is not that high.

If you want more turnover sounds like another reason to support random voting!

---

Counterpoint: Strom Thurmond was like a 50 year blight on the Senate.

50 years is a long fucking time.
---

Sounds like the smart compromise is to not impose term limits on Congress but abolish the Senate

---

Wikipedia tells me he was only in the Senate for 48 years, which makes more sense since that's divisible by 4.

Still a long ass time.
---

FFDragon posted...

Wikipedia tells me he was only in the Senate for 48 years, which makes more sense since that's divisible by 4.

I think you mean 6.
---

Yeah that.
---

I'm against term limits but I understand the arguments for them are generally made with good intentions, I just think it would make getting things done in Congress even more reliant on special interests and lobbying arms that literally write legislation.

Lobbying reform yeah duh. Getting money out of politics is a major priority.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What about the area Trump has direct and personal control over - appointing of lobbyists to cabinet positions?

Ex lobbyists.

---

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1201496872105467904?s=21

God 538s opinions stink
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1201496872105467904?s=21

God 538s opinions stink

They're right. There is no smoking gun. At this point Trump could testify at his trial in the Senate and admit every allegation down to the last detail and it would not be enough to convince either the Senate or the public that he was guilty. Not only does a smoking gun not exist in our universe, no smoking gun could conceivably exist.

And why is this the case? Because the American People are absolutely entitled to their choice of President. They can choose a criminal if they want to. Just like prior to the FTPA 2011, the Queen was entitled as a matter of law to fire the Prime Minister and choose whomsoever she liked to be PM, or not to have one at all. It was just an unwritten convention that she had to pick someone who could command the support of a majority of the Commons; by law she could have dismissed Parliament altogether, refused to call new elections, and governed from the throne. Because that is what a sovereign can do.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1201496872105467904?s=21

God 538s opinions stink

The data says there isn't a definitive public consensus on impeachment+removal yet, so logically it follows that the evidence must not be very good.

- Nate Silver, probably

---

Lol

---

There's this tendency among liberals to deny reality when they are faced with it, and to shoot the messenger. When 538 says there isn't a smoking gun, that is of course their opinion but it is an honest opinion, from one of the most objective and unbiased sources.

You can think something is a smoking gun all you want, but if the jury doesn't think so, then it isn't!
---

Duncan Hunter is going to plead guilty:
https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1201573682830888961?s=21

Re smoking guns: he fucking admitted it!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Duncan Hunter is going to plead guilty:
https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/1201573682830888961?s=21

Re smoking guns: he fucking admitted it!

He also asked China to investigate the Biden family on air.

You can see a literal video of him attempting to use his position for a political advantage.
---

To be clear: Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden alone is impeachable, and Trump has admitted it. There doesn't need to be a quid pro quo (which there very obviously was, and which Mulvaney admitted)

---

And omg
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1201588655204241415

---

my mouth could fit a watermelon right now oh god
---

Yeah it isn't a case of their not being a smoking gun, but rather a case of people being too dumb or unwilling to see the ones that are already in the open.
---